theZilber

I agree with what is said. When we lean into agents and want to use them for productivity, we need to accept the fact we will not fundamentally understand the code as we have designed and written it, otherwise might as well write the code ourselves. We already used to ship code with different levels of quality and technical debt to production before ai and developed a taste for what is "good enough" depending on the requirements, our long term workflow (how we close technical debt, and handle bugs), and our own personal capabilities. AI gives us more hands in the process and allows us to do more with less time, and less low level understanding. We should still question the code, and get our hands dirty in some sections, slow down and write ourselves small testing environments and chunks of code to get fundamental understanding of code which is critical. Otherwise we should just ship and forget and handle tech debt and "understanding debt" only when relevant. A lot of production code delivered pre ai already had tech debt that even the devs were not aware of, and yet a lot of it never fails and gets the job done, probably will be replaced in the future as those features become obsolete. Just because ai can surface those kinds of issues better does not mean straight away those have to be addressed meticulously.

The same way we do not understand already what the compiler does and how the code we have written runs against the machine, it's ok to delegate some of the lower level of understanding to AI, as long as the process produces the required results.

Different projects will have different sections where tech debt and code understanding debt are more critical, and we should with time acquire the intuition to know where we should rely more, and where we should rely less on ai to fill in the gaps.

I explained them politely what was the issue, and the differences in behavior which led me to conclude why it is a bug and not a feature.

Skipping back twenty minutes in time is not a feature. The reason it was skipping in the first place was because it would use a stale param on videos opened from youtube history.

Thank you everyone for the reads and the replies. I want to clarify a few things.

- the main reason i consider it a bug is because there is a difference of behavior between reopening the tab, and clicking from the history on the video. Videos get loaded with two timestamps, one in the url and one through some information received from the server, if it was a feature, the two timestamps should have been the same. The other issue is it was not the case before that if you would load a video from YouTube history, it would only load a timestamp at the js level without having a url timestamp, the url timestamp is especially annoying because it creates problems when you reopen a video from history, watch for a while, pause, and starting watching again much later - it will send you way back to the point where you started rewatching the first time. (It is confusing so read this carefully)

The combination of switching the behavior to loading two timestamps, the two timestamps being different, and as a result of a switch I could be sent back in time for huge chucks of the video (ie 20 minutes, not seconds) just because i paused for a long time on a video i loaded from history, created a set of issues which can not be justified together.

And seeing here, there is at least one person like me, who watches long form content, had the same issue.

What happens when you press ctrl+o? You get verbose mode?

I really liked the styling on the website. The concept itself is interesting, something about opening journal entries has a calming effect. Making it login only is a bit off-putting.

Hey, you might want to experiment with local sync approach by allowing devices to sync when are on the same network. I have never done this so there might be hurdles, but this can bypass the issues with cloud sync while maintaining the ability to sync across devices

No surprise there. Good thing some officials try and do something about it.

Sheesh, talk about "taking a break"...

I for sure approve this creative way to test things

I recommend you to show an example and a result for people to understand exactly what the tool does. As far as i know "merging images" is not a common term with a specific meaning.

Tbh, to keep my ego in check, whenever i get rejected ghosted, or whatever, I just assume the company/interviewer is doing a perfect job for screening for the kind of candidates they want and need, and if I don't pass it means "there wasn't a fit", tbh if we were totally honest with myself, I don't fit well into most corporate cultures, and I should not care if they ask me questions I did not care enough to answer well in the first place.

A highschool performance question is not odd. It is meant to filter me out - that is perfect, because why would I want to waste my time on an interview in a company with this mentality, in the first place?

The article's headline is great and it delivers the message clearly. But the whole premise to support the message is very assumptive - "there is no moat". There is a lot moat in cursor, bolt, lovable. The same way there is moat in the chat apps of openai, anthropic, gemini...

They say there is no moat, but in fact, a feature in anthropic takes a good few months up to a year to appear on openai chatapp, and the same is true vice versa.

You could say some of those issues are solvable by allocating more money, and resources, which might be true, and it could be true that it would be beneficial for openai to develop their own cursor platform in the future, to get better margins. But in reality, who knows when that future would come? Maybe by then cursor will have much more moat and entering the market would be much more difficult. Maybe openai will continue developing their core product and entering other domains will not be worth the effort.

Currently, LLMs as a product have not been solved. All companies operate at a lose in order to rise the top, and we still don't know how it will be monetized in the future. But as it stands - there is already moat, moat in infrastructure - even though a few years ago they said that llms have no moat, now there is already a strong set of features and "agents" that deliver us the deep reasoning, online searching, and multimodal experience.

So, there is moat. But moat can accumulate over time. For the article to be true - it should prove the the current moat is low, and it can not accumulate.

It is less about performance issues of loading megabytes on the browser (which is also an issue). It is about those cases where a fetch request may take a noticable amount of time just because of server distance, maybe the server needs to perform some work (ssr) to create the page (sometimes from data fetched from an external api).

If you have a desktop app it will also have to do the same work by fetching all the data it needs from the server, and it might sometimes cache some of the data locally (like user profile etc...). This allows the developers to load the data on user intent(hover, and some other configurable logic) instead of when application is loaded(slow preload), or when the user clicks (slow response).

Even if the the target page is 1byte, the network latency alone makes things feel slugish. This allows low effort fast ui with good opinionated api.

One of the reasons I can identify svelte sites within 5 seconds of visiting a page, is because they preload on hover, and navigating between pages feels instant. This is great and fighting against it seems unreasonable.

But I agree that in other cases where megabytes of data needs to be fetched upon navigating, using these features will probably cause more harm then good, unless applied with additional intelligent logic (if these features allow such extension).

Edit: i addressed preloading, regarding pretending its a whole new set of issues which i am less experienced with. Making web apps became easier but unfortunately them having slow rendering times and other issues.. well is a case of unmitigated tech debt that comes from making web application building more accessible.

When I read the first meaty chapter about graphs and commutativity I initially thought he just spends too long explaining simple concepts.

But then ai realized I would always forget the names for all the mathy c' words - commutativity commutativity, qssociativity... and for the first time I could actually remember commutativity and what it means, just because he tied it into a graphical representation (which actually made me laugh out loud because, initially, I thought it was a joke). So the concept of "x + y = y + x" always made sense to me but never really stuck like the graphical representation, which also made me remember its name for the first time.

I am sold.

What does it offer over vimium?

Great quiz and really pushed me to understand probabilities better. Amazing take and i had a lot of fun!

You writing something personal serves as inspiration to people who just want to write.

Many years ago I started writing as a goal to make it something big. But I was very far away from acheiving anything close to my goals, and writing started feeling like a chore.

Now I am working on my personal blog as a platform, not only for writing, but for self expression in design and programming. Because I just read your post - it makes me want to speed up the process of finishing my own blog (it contains many engineering quirks that need to be ironed out as it is not a simple website - hence the time taken to make it).

So what I am trying to say, when people read your posts - you are moving the needle. You are not changing anything spectacularly, but rather have some influence of people's perception over certain things. And now - you moved me closer to finishing what I started months ago - this should serve enough of a dopamine hit for you to continue doing what you are doing, however you choose to rationalize it :) (assuming you even get to read this comment)

I found this article hilarious, been a while since I had a read like this that was written so effectively. Thanks!

What creates stock value is public hype and arbitrary numbers. Company revenue is only loosely related to stock value, and more strongly related to the trend of the stock.

Also a big part of a stock price is how much currently is circulated by big funds in that particular investment sector.

If you want to compare how much yhe company actually takes away from creators - you should substract income from ads and subscriptions from money paid to creators. Not stock selling price which are are speculative at best.

The language of the article implies that Spotify rips artists off while their executives earn millions.

The problem is the millions the executives make do not come directly from Spotify's revenue, they come from stocks which are only loosely related.

Don't get me wrong, Spotify has many issues. And should be rightfully criticized. but if you are going to parody them makes sure it is a humoristic pretence that most people would understand. Juxtaposing CEO stock selling revenue with how much artists actually make, is more misleading than it is humoristic - as stocks prices are merely loosely linked to company income, and by extension loosely linked to the artist's cut.

So I would assume that if a case to be made for taking down the website - it is because it did not convey it is a parody and was edging defamation.

You are also a victim if you assume they provide you the best coupons available.

It looks very good and has very inspiring aesthetics.

I am not sure why not many people checked it out - you might want to link directly to the website rather than the post about it - in the website you can add a what is this button, and copy paste the most important bits here also.

Also, while this may require significant changes, I think a better experience would be for someone to be able to check the website without login, meaning you will have to store everything locally and handle syncs to the server. Since you already engineered a lot, I would assume that would also be on your list of todo's. Looks like a great play demo project, I liked it.

I second this.

Also i would like to add:

You bring up a text input box implying I can try your product - Well I input the text once, click submit and I am being met with a logon screen. Ok sure let me log in, annoying but it is common bs practice. Now I need to input my idea again, already bad but fine lets go. Now - after I login, and input my idea not once, but twice - I understand that in order to even try the product I need to actually pay! You need to make this clear before letting me jump through hoops.

If you are going to put an input box and a submit button, make sure those are functional and not a trap to lure people in to give you money or their mailing address. Either give one free generation or make it ot clear before sign up that money is needed to generate anything. That is an instant block from my inbox account plus a very strongly worded response right here.

While I am probably not someone who could make use of this in the near future. Having a universal way to record metadata sounds like a good approach.

Would be surprising if something like this was not attempted before - in case it wasn't - that is a nice step to the roght direction

I agree, I follow the same principle. Also i would like to extend it to - "if you slow down when working on a problem, you might have stumbled upon something unexpected, identify it, and break it down.

I like the minimalist aproach and I was exactly looking for something like this and considered to build one in my future projects.

I assume you have some core features already planned and you would implement them next - like undo, copying of elements, etc...